Archaeological Context Makes Sense

Amphora illustrated in
 the Schinoussa archive
Source: Christos Tsirogiannis

Archaeological contexts matter. 

This may sound like stating the obvious. But walk into a museum that displays, say, Greek or Roman archaeological material and you may start to ask questions that the object in itself cannot answer. Take an Athenian black-figured amphora. The label will probably tell us that it was made in Athens but we probably want to know where it was found. It is fairly large, and not the sort of object that is found in the cemeteries of ancient Athens. It is fairly complete and so has probably been protected in some sort of tomb cut out of the rock: an Etruscan tomb in central Italy is certainly a possibility. Was it found on its own? Was it part of a set of Athenian ceramic sympotic equipment, that is to say part of the wine-drinking apparatus. We may want to ask why the Etruscans buried their dead with imported Athenian pottery: was it about the iconography? But was the amphora necessarily found in (modern) Tuscany? Could it come from one of the Greek colonial settings in southern Italy or Sicily? 

The museum label may tell us that modern scholarship has attributed it to a named (anonymous) pot-painter. But does that assume that such ‘artists’ were recognised in antiquity? Did symposiasts choose to drink wine out of cups decorated by ‘named’ individuals? Or would you want to be buried with a pot decorated by ‘Elbows Out’ or some other similarly named painter? 

Even the date assigned to be pot may be problematic. If the archaeological context is unknown, how do we know the date? Is it similar to another piece? Does that other piece have a secure archaeological context? No? So how do we obtain a date? Do we have to depend on a chronology based on supposed stylistic developments? How does this chronological framework link to known historical events, such as the Persian destruction levels at Athens? 

The Crosby Garrett helmet
displayed next to
the helmet from Ribchester
© David Gill

But the lack of secure archaeological contexts may hamper our knowledge of Roman objects. Take the Roman bronze cavalry helmet said to have been found at Crosby Garrett in Cumbria (north-west England) and then sold at auction in London. While we might assume that this was part of the equipment of a Roman cavalryman on the northern frontier of Britannia, it could be that the helmet was found, say, on the Danube frontier, but that at some point (in recent years) it was decided to say that it was found elsewhere. Archaeological investigations at the alleged findspot in Cumbria have yet to find conclusive evidence that the helmet was indeed found there. 

Lack of context can sometimes mean that scholars misinterpret objects. Take, for example, a fragmentary Greek marble funerary stele that was displayed in an exhibition in a high profile North American museum. It was suggested that the iconography pointed to a findspot in western Türkiye (Ionia). Yet the error of this assumption was confirmed when the lower part of the same stele was found in a rural cemetery in eastern Attica, Greece. 

Top part: stele fragment formerly in
New York private collection (and now repatriated)
Bottom part: excavated in a rural cemetery in eastern Attica

Archaeological context matters. Without it, archaeologists can struggle to make sense of the objects.

| |